Jordi Orwell Barcelona CAT in English

...and now, even more....
(April 14, 2006. Sixth St. and Cooper)
|

We miss you ....
|

We read in La Vanguardia Foix's opinion about Iraq:

Iraq installed in chaos

LLUÍS FOX - 03/05/2005 - 22.02 hours
...
Iraqis hope for better times. But they aren't here yet. The impulse of their exemplary democratic participation has vanished among ethnic disputes to obtain representation in the new government and, especially, because of the attacks that, dayly, cause victims among iraqis and foreign soldiers.
...
The war that costed tenths of thousands of deaths was a fiasco, and the reconstruction of a country in which there is a constant dripping of victims is also a fiasco. The world's first power cannot base its hegemony on force alone, leaving the law out. [The U.S.] will probably lose and be forced to abandon the country as it did in Vietnam thirty years ago.

On the one hand, Foix talks about "exemplary democratic participation" in Iraq, on the the other hand he talks about a "constant dripping of victims" and "fiascos".... This double talk is typical of false pacifists. These false pacifists reluctantly and grudgingly recognize the obvious democratic advances in Iraq but, next, waste no time pointing out the dripping of deaths, failing to also tell us that these deaths are the handywork of the "iraqi resistance" they support and whose sure victory they augur...
|

(See the original post in Spanish)
It is clear that the tortures of Abu Ghraib are a shame and should be punished. If we consider that the punishment is not enough, we can say so. That's what a democratic society is all about. However, there is a bottom line and it is that these tortures are being used by the enemies of democracy, starting with the jihadis, to make their propaganda. We can see terrorist Al Zawahiri denouncing the "American style of democracy". We can see those who are on the side of the head-choppers, in the web pages of Al Jazeera, of the ultra-leftists and the jihadi, rubbing their hands with images of Abu Ghraib. Yes, those who took part in the tortures ought to be punished. I cannot agree more. They have damaged the cause against terror.

However, the point, as the Belmont Club states, is a different one:

While it is important to punish everyone responsible for the outrages at Abu Ghraib, the only effective way to stop the corrupting influences of war is to achieve victory. Japanese tourists are welcome in Asia everywhere today because the Second World War ended in 1945. And if by contrast Palestinians hand out sweets whenever a Jewish orphanage and Old Folk's home is bombed it may be because the UN refugee camps there celebrated their 50th anniversary in 1998. If the outrages at Abu Ghraib hasten the end of war it will not have been in vain, but if they lead, as the Left most earnestly desires, to a Vietnam-like stalemate, it will be not the last but the first of many sad mileposts.

Said it very clearly, Abu Ghraib tortures cannot be seen apart from the international war on terror. These images are used to give support to international yijad against democracy. The impression and rejection we can feel against these facts fall in the of false pacifists's propaganda, of those useful idiots (though increasingly less idiots and more concious supporters) of the jihadis. It ends up being a selective impression, only applicable to Abu Ghraib.

We cannot be selective in our rejection to tortures. These images are not exclusive of American or British soldiers in Iraq. There are similar images of soldiers of "pacifist" countries, opposed to the interevention in Iraq, such as Belgium orCanada, during the intervention in Somalia. If the issue is torture, Abu Ghraib is part of a wider phenomenon, soldiers' behavior in international conflicts. To focus solely on Abu Ghraib is to miss the issue and support a political agenda. In that case, we should bear in mind that after Abu Ghraib was revealed, there were elections that had the massive popular support of Iraqis. This did not happen in other contexts in which tortures were also denounced. Iraqis, in spite of the shameful tortures filtered to the press by American soldiers, support democracy in Iraq and condemn the "Iraqi resistance".



Belgian soldiers torturing Somalis (more information here).






Less famous images. Belgian soldiers torture their victims in blatant abuse of their privileged position as United Nations' "Blue Helmets", "Beasts of blue berets". These images have not circulated as much as Abu Ghraib's (neither, apparently, did they deserve Botero portraying them in his paintings). Why?





Several Canadian soldiers tortured and killed Somali prisioners (see it also here, with video included).


Prisioners of Bosnian Serbs. We can only see the results of malnutrition, abuse and humiliation, not the abuse in action....


All of these cases have received less international attention than Abu Ghraib. It is not surprising: US soldiers are not involved. And, of course, there are more tortures and executions such as those exerted by French soldiers in Algeria or byGerman prison guards between 2001 and 2004, or Killing camps in Bosnia.
|

We can read it in El Periódico:

"I'D RATHER BE KILLED THAN KILL"
To illustrate his argument, Bono states: "I'd rather be killed than kill; it's a moral conviction.

This is the guy responsible for defending us from jihadi terrorists. He's more concerned with the righteousness of his conduct than with defending the citizens that, surely, do not share his personal preference...

Bono with Rumsfeldt

Shark Tale: the story of a vegetarian shark

Bono, Felipe Gonzalez self-decorated protegé, would rather be killed than kill. The problem is, Bono, that terrorists are listening.

Speak for yourself and only for yourself ..... but wait until you are no longer defense minister.......
|

Read the original more complete post here (in Spanish).

The Spanish media are reproducing and adopting the versions of the accused terrorists on trial for the massacres of September 11. These versions are ridiculous, maybe more ridiculous than those of Comical Ali. Last year, the Spanish media sided up with the terrorists and qualified them as"victims of racism". Now, they are making a big noise of the accused condemn of the terrorists attacks of September 11. As blogger LGF says, this is nothing but the practice of Taqiyah: "the Islamic da’wa (proselytization) strategy of deliberate falsehood and denial of religious affiliations, when faced with an overpowering enemy. It might be a good idea to remember this when reading the following: Spain’s Top Qaeda Suspect Condemns Sept. 11 Attacks.

The enemy's speaker, Al Jazeerah, warns us that it will be not so easy to condemn them: in the Netherlands and Germany they were released.

Moreover, an Italian judge ruled that it's not crime for European yihadists to go to Iraq to "immolate" themselves....

Bad news....




Ghasoub Al Abrash, the one who filmed Al Qaeda's targets in the US:

"Who me? ¿Terrorist? No, no. I'm in love with the US. I swear you!

Abu Dadah? In the past I said he was a radical jihadist, but now I say he is not.

Mujahidin? No, no. That was my disguise for a Carnival party.

Mohamed Atta? I don't know him. Who's he?

Bin Laden? What's that?.

You don't believe me? Ask my Mom. She'll tell you I'm a good kid.

Why are you accusing me? I just work hard and I'm a good Moslem..."

Unfortunately, these statements are not really far from what they are saying.....
|

Some names you can see at the Web page of Fair Elections:
Argentina: Luis Tonelli. He declares in an interview:

"LT:...In Albany black people are afraid of voting."
- Why?
- LT:...In these counties, those who lead the electoral process are far right-wing activists that put signs of the type: "Before you vote, pay your taxes"; or spread rumors that if one black person votes, this person may be a convict that cannot vote."
- Is that intimidation?
LT: The Democrats say it is. This year the Democratic Party is doing the impossible to make people vote. Because the election is so close, each vote counts. But for Republicans it is not convenient that people vote because their base is very well organized through organizations such as the National Rifle Association."

Well, this gentleman may be the hell of a good social scientist, but is he a "non-partisan observer"? This November 2nd, he will be in Missouri, "observing" the US elections.

Chile: Manuel Antonio Garreton. He writes four days after September 11:

Looking at the terrorist attack to the United States in this September, one could not avoid to remember similar images of twenty-eight years ago, at similar times, when, supported by the same United States and using planes bought by Chile to this country, a group of terrorists disguised - that time of generals and army members - bombarded and assaulted La Moneda [the presidential residence of Chile].

Everything is horribly similar, although the symbols chosen for the attack of the terrorists of this time were more related to the financial and military world of the victim country, and that chosen by the Chilean military terrorists were related to the republican and democratic life of victim Chile. And another difference: the generals of that September 11 of 1973 were more coward in terms of risking their lives.

Is he really a "non-partisan observer"?

Mexico: Sergio Aguayo. He is a prestigious figure in Mexico, with a tradition of receiving support from the Ford and Mac Arthur Foundations. He just obtain the Stephen P. Duggan prize. He declares:

"I accepted a recognition [from the International Education Institute] as an act of minimal reciprocity to Global Exchange, a civic organization that companied Alianza Cívica [his own NGO] in the observation of Mexican elections."

"This is s way of colaborating with a part of the American society, which discovering the little confidence there is in the elections in some states recurs to foreigners that, like me, have some experience in the combat to electoral fraud."

Is he really a "non-partisan observer"?
Well, there are so many prestigious and moderate figures. No doubt about their reputation, only about their agenda. They don't need to be ultra-leftists to be biased. It's just enough to be Jimmy Carter boys.
|

Two facts: Bush is leading polls; most people outside the US don't like Bush. Once these people are tired of complaining ()and wining, they realized that their opinion is irrelevant in affecting the results of these elections, so they try to do something: they try to influence results or they try to invalidate these elections. The first try has been made by leftists like thos of "The Guardian," who under the "Operation Clark County" tried to persuade voter of this Ohio county to vote against Bush, that is, for Kerry. Result: a wave of voters' complaints and volunteers for Bush. The second try is the project Fair Election International run by an NGO called "Global Exchange." These "observers" are congresspeople, journalists, attorneys of several nations, who criticize US electoral authorities for being "partisan." Allegedly, these foreign observers are not. Wrong. They are a private organization with they own agenda. Under this logic there is no difference between elections in the US and countries that are transiting to democracy, such as El Salvador several years ago. Moreover, some media claim that the "Third World Monitors US Elections". And, of course, the leftist Guardian supports such supervision.
We see it coming: if Kerry does not win, they are ready to declare US elections a fraud, that is, we will have the second part of Michael Moore's movie plot.
|

Kofi Annan and his gang are now very outspoken. They are part of an international campaign against Bush, which consists of producing scandals to support Kerry, an enemy of an enemy, therefore a friend. Will they succeed? The American voters and only they will have the last word on that.
|

We all think we are right. Otherwise, why not thinking some other way? That’s fine, but at the same time, if we have a democratic ideal, we respect political opponents. They also have a saying on the country’s way of doing things. Last year, the Iraq intervention offered interesting phenomena to analyze. Those who oppose it did it partly because of humanitarian reasons. This war was going to cause million of deaths; oil interests underlie this war (“no blood for oil”). The war was immoral. Those who supported the war were criminals. Etc., etc., etc. And criminals are usually not listened to. Conclusion by logic association: we should treat those who supported the war as criminals. That is what happened in Spain last year. The headquarters of the Partido Popular, Aznar’s party, were attacked by leftist demonstrators and by anonymous bombs, Molotov bombs. Any public expression from their supporters was boycotted by leftist mobs. Those who organized these attacks thought to be answering those who were allegedly killing innocents. What’s the difference between this view and a fanatic view that justifies or promotes terrorist actions? These attacks do not kill and terrorists kill? Probably it is a difference of intensity, but not of reasoning.

Unfortunately, what was going on in Spain a year ago is also happening in the United States. Some people are being harassed for their political views. We are talking about violence and a "climate of fear," as Stanley Kurtz of NRO calls it. BlogistPatrick from New Jersey says it very clearly:

People are going to lose friends over this election year. People are probably going to lose husbands and wives. People will be fired from their jobs. People will quit their jobs. People will be arrested. People will be kicked out of schools. People will call for recounts.

I really hope that things calm down. Democracy means respect.

|

Well, this shouldn't be news, right?
News are that SADDAM Hussein believed that the United Nations system was so corrupt that it would protect his dictatorship from American aggression and allow him to complete quickly his quest for weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

There was a French Connection for Saddam, too. He was hoping to remain in power with with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac.

Yesterday, CNN showed a section called "Diplomatic License," where a French gentleman journalist from Radio France International criticized the American media for not covering well the Duelfer report. He said that the American media should be focusing more on how this report shows that Bush was wrong. Instead, he claims, the American media are focusing too much on the "Food for Oil" scandal, also called "Kofigate."

My comment is, how does he dare? The American media do criticize their president, much more than a state-run agency such as Radio France (International). This journalist-public-servant could not possible say something against Mr. Chirac. If he did, he would certainly receive bad news from Mr. Chirac.

To make the point clearer, I did not find anything about the Kofigate at Radio France International, so I perform some searches. I tried "Food for Oil", "Saddam", "Chirac", and "Chirac Saddam". Nothing.
|

John Kerry and his clumsy statement about the "global test" turned against him. Not only is he now portrayed as a flip-flopper, but also as "our man in America". This has been going on for a while. As Dana Milbank from the Washington Post reports, these days Kerry only speaks French in private. He is afraid of French media, which are going crazy for him. He refuses interviews! He is too busy!






Kerry is not going to do anything about it. The anti-French feeling, a very good job of Jacques Chirac, is now strong in America and Kerry's french connection is not going to sell.

These are the times. American is stigmatized in France. France is stigmatized in America. Bush didn't push much about this in the first debate. Only a little. Maybe in the next debate, we will hear more about Chirac.


|

OK. Kerry performed better than expected, but not quite as well for being a real threat to Bush. What is interesting is that some media are recovering hope and overdoing it. Example, some comentators at CNN. "Kerry made it, Kerry looked presidential"....Well, by no means Kerry defeated Bush. Moreover, he didn't do anything that could possible change his image as a flip-flopper. He just continued the trend he started last Monday of trumpeting his prospective international policies. He is like a kid with a new toy. He wants to project the image of a guy who is not just focused on Iraq or Afghanistan: European allies, the former Soviet Union, Iran, North Korea. Out of that he is not going to project a presidential image. Interestingly, it is precisely in these issues that Bush did better than Kerry! Out of two weeks of a renewed discourse, it is unlikely that Kerry can do anything better than just encourage his own supporters.
|

Can we rely on the statement of a person who is not free?
Remember how the American soldiers captured by Saddam accused themselves of invading Iraq?
How they were portrayed by the Iraqi media?
That's exactly what Al Jazeera is doing with the Briton taken hostage. While CNN, and the New York times report the fact, Al Jazeera, the terrorists' spokeman, uses it as propaganda. That's known. However, look how the Spanish media report it: EFE, the Spanish news agency, remarks that Bigley calls Blair "a liar." Not even Al Jazeera (I hate to put links to the enemy's site) remarks the liar aspect of the news. Now, following EFE, other Spanish media made their day: that's what their international headlines look line, for example, La Vanguardia or El Mundo, left and right-wing media, respectively.

Now, Blair is to blame on the terrorists' actions. Very juicy angle for the news. No wonder that Spaniards accused Aznar of the massacre in Madrid of March 11. That's how media nurture them...

|

Some media have already established that Saddam's WMD were no danger. Yesterday, in the New York Times, MAHDI OBEIDI describes us in great detail Saddam's nuclear program. There is more information in the book "The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind". In particular:

Was Iraq a potential threat to the United States and the world? Threat is
alwaysa matter of perception, but our nuclear program could have been
reinstituted atthe snap of Saddam Hussein's fingers

The governments of Iran and North Korea, both close friends and supporters of terrorist groups (massacre of the AMIA in Argentina, massacre of Rangún in Burma, among others) will have to think again about their plans... We may see their leaders converted like Gadhafy or shaved like Saddam...

|

This blog is a continuation of my first blog: http://jorwell.blogspot.com/, written in Catalan and Spanish. Some of the topics I'm interested in are the war on terror and the US elections. This will be the place for writing something about them and I will do it in English.

|